Genderfluidity and the mystery of gender in general

[Coriolis]

If unintended consequences had a wiki I'd link it.

Also avoidable suffering.

And Predictable Consequences.

I have no idea what this even has to do with my post, quoted here.

 

[Lark]

I have no idea what this even has to do with my post, quoted here.

I'll let you think about it, I can recommend you a book too, if you like to read. I dont know if you do.

Oppression and Liberty (Routledge Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Simone Weil: 9780415254076: Amazon.co.uk:

Its a very good book.

Although ignore my review, I wrote that years ago and havent been able to check my reviews as easily because Amazon changed the way that reviewers are able to look over their reviews post-composition, I used to edit reviews when I had read the book a couple of times or if my opinions changed (you know for the content which can be considered more opinion than simple description) but its less easy these days. Sometimes I decide just to leave them how they are because they are what they are.

Anyway, its the book, not the review that matters. Its a short read. Like I say its a good one, good for perspective on questions like this.

 

[Coriolis]

I'll let you think about it, I can recommend you a book too, if you like to read. I dont know if you do.

Oppression and Liberty (Routledge Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Simone Weil: 9780415254076: Amazon.co.uk:

Its a very good book.

Sorry, I have more pressing things to think about than trying to decipher the opinions of someone who cannot be bothered to explain them. Reading a book is not a substitute for being told directly what you think. I do like to read, but similarly have quite a few other books in the queue.

 

[Maou]

When "the world" insists each individual must fit within some narrowly defined role based on biology (or anything else, really), and penalizes those who do not, that requires too much bending on the part of individuals. Such expectations are unhealthy and counterproductive, and it reasonable to work for their removal.

Yeah, and its also generally things like these that never actually change to be how you want them to be. Because you either die first, or society collapses. So even if its a bit cynical or counter productive on the individual's level. Its more practical then telling someone to change the world if they don't like an aspect of society.

 

[Lark]

Yeah, and its also generally things like these that never actually change to be how you want them to be. Because you either die first, or society collapses. So even if its a bit cynical or counter productive on the individual's level. Its more practical then telling someone to change the world if they don't like an aspect of society.

If you break that down a little, like what's meant by "the world"?

I would understand by that the majority of humankind for the majority of human history, which has been a good thing, if it was not then we would not even be in a position to discuss the fortunes or misfortunes of individuals who feel socially excluded in the first place.

I'm all for an inclusive society but lets not disrupt that. Spreading the personal misery, which was once the preserve of a few, to everyone, making it universal, does absolutely nothing what so ever to improve the lot of the original individuals and minorities who felt socially excluded in the first place. It could, in fact its likely to, have adverse consequences for them.

Its a real thing that there ARE evils and unavoidable suffering in the world, that is absolutely real. Sometimes it requires some individual adaptation and adjustment. I personally do not see that individual adaptation and adjustment to always be a bad thing. It could be difficult for the individual and there's lots of grounds to discuss what is and isnt simply conformity/conformism. Whether or not there is room to accommodate differences (including differences of opinion). However, its still a thing.

 

[Lark]

Sorry, I have more pressing things to think about than trying to decipher the opinions of someone who cannot be bothered to explain them. Reading a book is not a substitute for being told directly what you think. I do like to read, but similarly have quite a few other books in the queue.

Well, maybe one day you'll be more open to different opinions than what you are today. I'm sure, barring some kind of censorship campaign, good discussions of the difference between avoidable and unavoidable suffering will still be around by then.

 

[Maou]

If you break that down a little, like what's meant by "the world"?

I would understand by that the majority of humankind for the majority of human history, which has been a good thing, if it was not then we would not even be in a position to discuss the fortunes or misfortunes of individuals who feel socially excluded in the first place.

I'm all for an inclusive society but lets not disrupt that. Spreading the personal misery, which was once the preserve of a few, to everyone, making it universal, does absolutely nothing what so ever to improve the lot of the original individuals and minorities who felt socially excluded in the first place. It could, in fact its likely to, have adverse consequences for them.

Its a real thing that there ARE evils and unavoidable suffering in the world, that is absolutely real. Sometimes it requires some individual adaptation and adjustment. I personally do not see that individual adaptation and adjustment to always be a bad thing. It could be difficult for the individual and there's lots of grounds to discuss what is and isnt simply conformity/conformism. Whether or not there is room to accommodate differences (including differences of opinion). However, its still a thing.

A person's world is the society they live in. So like America, or Saudi Arabia. When you say change society to match you, to some people that means dying for a cause that you won't see the fruition of. Since most real change happens little by little over many generations. So even if you still want to fight for change, it will be a life long battle. Some risking way more then their emotions in the process.

I don't disagree with your post.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, maybe one day you'll be more open to different opinions than what you are today. I'm sure, barring some kind of censorship campaign, good discussions of the difference between avoidable and unavoidable suffering will still be around by then.

Please. There's nothing more annoying than someone who thinks an "argument" is dumping a book link or a provocative one-liner into a post. (and I saw you even agreed with me on this, in a different thread.) It's not about censorship or not being open, it's about some people scanning as lazy and demanding more investment from others than what they seem willing to offer themselves.

If someone wants to discuss something and they feel a book is worth reading, please summarize the points in the book that are valuable, to at least better reflect what they thought was good. Just because someone can name drop a bunch of book titles says nothing about the quality of his or her reasoning on the matter nor is it actually authentically engaging in "discussion."

 

[Betty Blue]

There are also places, or there were, where women could be accorded all the rights and opportunities of men, by completely forsaking everything feminine and vowing to live their lives as men. That allowed them rights of inheritance, to be the "man of the family" and keep the family together in the absence of brothers. An extreme case of what I specified no one should have to do.

 

[Mole]

Please. There's nothing more annoying than someone who thinks an "argument" is dumping a book link or a provocative one-liner into a post. (and I saw you even agreed with me on this, in a different thread.) It's not about censorship or not being open, it's about some people scanning as lazy and demanding more investment from others than what they seem willing to offer themselves.

If someone wants to discuss something and they feel a book is worth reading, please summarize the points in the book that are valuable, to at least better reflect what they thought was good. Just because someone can name drop a bunch of book titles says nothing about the quality of his or her reasoning on the matter nor is it actually authentically engaging in "discussion."

The book is dead and is now the content of the net.

And ironically when a medium dies, it raises in status. So since its death the status of the book has risen. A book is now a status signal. I myself regularly signal my high status by providing a link to a book. Of course I do not expect anyone to read the book, and only the naive would do so, I do though expect them to be impressed by my high status.

Unfortunately for the barely literate, the only way to beat high status, is by a higher status book link.

Just click on Understanding media: The extensions of man - Centre for Communication and Social Change - The University of Queensland, Australia

 

[Oberon]

I am personally disturbed by the idea of gender beyond a sex. Why do I even have to have a gender...I am fine with my sex, and I am fine with whatever anyone else wants to do...but it is a violent assertion of control to force society to except gender at all.

For example, say I have the genitals of a male. Why then do I have to be a male or a female beyond that? Why do I have to add another layer of information to my pathos? Suppose I want to be a rock, or a stool, or a Maglowdite.

Now I have to write on stuff, "Man balls" (check). And then I have to go a step further and reveal more about my psychology and say that I am mentally, or genderwise, a woman or man? WTF? Why would I want that? Why would I want to be more powerless. It doesn't make sense and this proud galvanizing about gender is going to end up just allowing the powers that be to assert more control and influence over us all.

It's like walking into a goulash with a mark on your head saying "enslave me."

 

[Totenkindly]

I am personally disturbed by the idea of gender beyond a sex. Why do I even have to have a gender...I am fine with my sex, and I am fine with whatever anyone else wants to do...but it is a violent assertion of control to force society to except gender at all.

For example, say I have the genitals of a male. Why then do I have to be a male or a female beyond that? Why do I have to add another layer of information to my pathos? Suppose I want to be a rock, or a stool, or a Maglowdite.

Next time you can't function over the long haul of life because you can't cope with being a stool in a human's body, let me know.

[to put it another way -- depending upon the specific claim you are looking it, you could simply be indulging in "false equivalence" here]

In general, though, sure -- until categories are viewed as expansive in nature, they can be easily abused as a way to restrict. That doesn't really address the nature/substance of the categories themselves, however.

It's like walking into a goulash with a mark on your head saying "enslave me."

Is it, really? Or are you just being a mite histrionic hyperbolic here?

 

[anticlimatic]

You know how if you keep saying the same word over and over again it just keeps sounding stranger more mysterious and less definitive? Welcome to 21st century debates on gender. The solution? Stop saying it. Find other hobbies. See if it doesn’t make more sense after you stop looking at it for a while.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah, and its also generally things like these that never actually change to be how you want them to be. Because you either die first, or society collapses. So even if its a bit cynical or counter productive on the individual's level. Its more practical then telling someone to change the world if they don't like an aspect of society.

When changes do come, they are brought about by the efforts of people who are not satisfied with this philosophy. Everyone else benefits from their efforts (i.e. freeloads, essentially).

Well, maybe one day you'll be more open to different opinions than what you are today. I'm sure, barring some kind of censorship campaign, good discussions of the difference between avoidable and unavoidable suffering will still be around by then.

Maybe one day you will be more prepared to expend the effort actually to explain your point of view than you are today. It is difficult to be open to an opinion that one has not been presented with.

 

[SD45T-2]

I always make sure to change my gender fluid every 2 years or 15,000 miles.

 

[Mole]

The natural selection of DNA tells us about the history of gender, but not the ideology of gender.

Biology and ideology seem to inhabit different worlds.

Ideology is predigested thought, serves interests, and has a demonology, while biology contents itself with the physical facts as they have evolved over 4 thousand million years.

And it seems ideology is more emotionally appealing than the facts of natural selection. And ideology is easier to understand than biology.

 

[Oberon]

Next time you can't function over the long haul of life because you can't cope with being a stool in a human's body, let me know.

[to put it another way -- depending upon the specific claim you are looking it, you could simply be indulging in "false equivalence" here]

In general, though, sure -- until categories are viewed as expansive in nature, they can be easily abused as a way to restrict. That doesn't really address the nature/substance of the categories themselves, however.



Is it, really? Or are you just being a mite histrionic hyperbolic here?

Actually it is. Based on the book blueprint, totalitarianism is created in partially by suppressing or increasing the forces of sexuality and gender identification. IN other words, too much in either direction the poles and spectrums being here polyamory to complete sexual repression, and total plurality of gender identification to no gender identification, respectively, the more likely the society is totalitarian and any change in either direction on either pole marks the approach towards a dictatorship.

So you may be upset by the science and evidence of it but you are not in the same position to argue as the author of blueprint. My recommendation to you is to get a phd and to negate his conclusions, which have been accepted as law among sociologists, if you are not a fan of the science.

 

[Mole]

Next time you can't function over the long haul of life because you can't cope with being a stool in a human's body, let me know.

[to put it another way -- depending upon the specific claim you are looking it, you could simply be indulging in "false equivalence" here]

In general, though, sure -- until categories are viewed as expansive in nature, they can be easily abused as a way to restrict. That doesn't really address the nature/substance of the categories themselves, however.



Is it, really? Or are you just being a mite histrionic hyperbolic here?

We protect the rights of minorities, including sexual minorities, but exceptions don't make the rule.

 

[Coriolis]

Actually it is. Based on the book blueprint, totalitarianism is created in partially by suppressing or increasing the forces of sexuality and gender identification. IN other words, too much in either direction the poles and spectrums being here polyamory to complete sexual repression, and total plurality of gender identification to no gender identification, respectively, the more likely the society is totalitarian and any change in either direction on either pole marks the approach towards a dictatorship.

So you may be upset by the science and evidence of it but you are not in the same position to argue as the author of blueprint. My recommendation to you is to get a phd and to negate his conclusions, which have been accepted as law among sociologists, if you are not a fan of the science.

What book? I am not a fan of speculation masquerading as science, and can recognize unsupported conclusions, even outside my own field. Very little has been established regarding gender, beyond some aspects of physiology that are relatively straightfoward to measure. The most sound conclusions are at best statistical, meaning they say little on an individual level, which is most of us experience life. When people and institutions stop asking about gender and stop making decisions, exclusions, and requirements based on that, beyond matters of personal preference, gender will no longer of concern. Until then, disregard of it and its use as a pretext for how people are treated is just unilateral disarmament.

Bottom line: if gender and sexuality should be a complete nonissue outside of personal relationships, and I think it should be, everyone needs to be on board with that, and act accordingly.

 

[Oberon]

What book? I am not a fan of speculation masquerading as science, and can recognize unsupported conclusions, even outside my own field. Very little has been established regarding gender, beyond some aspects of physiology that are relatively straightfoward to measure. The most sound conclusions are at best statistical, meaning they say little on an individual level, which is most of us experience life. When people and institutions stop asking about gender and stop making decisions, exclusions, and requirements based on that, beyond matters of personal preference, gender will no longer of concern. Until then, disregard of it and its use as a pretext for how people are treated is just unilateral disarmament.

Bottom line: if gender and sexuality should be a complete nonissue outside of personal relationships, and I think it should be, everyone needs to be on board with that, and act accordingly.

Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society: Nicholas A. Christakis: 9780316230032: Amazon.com: Books

In the book it is shown that the only antidote to dictatorships or totalitarianism is the family unit. The stronger the family unit is, the less loyal a citizen is to the state. In fact, statistically speaking, it is shown in the book that monarchies, and other societies which involved strong central forces of power which comitted atrocities did so by eroding the family unit and that the energy spectrum between the family and the government is diametrically opposed and a zero sum game - mathematically proven in the book.

There are several ways to reach the same conclusion and traversing one path creates a dominoe affect where all others occur. Changing gender is one leverage point which could result in the others falling depending on the threshold.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow but the difference between us and Nazi germany is the strong family unit. Socities are 99.9 percent similar. We notice the variation but rest assured, there is a blueprint.

By changing the relationships between lovers, to disintegrate the the family unit, totalitarianism is established or moved towards. Two methods in the book are limiting or saturating gender, or limited or overstating sexuality.

By doing so, the one on one relationships required for the family unit disintegrate, and the state acquires enough power to enslave the citizens.

Book was written by a liberal.

The idea that anything is a personal issue, and does not affect society as a whole is simply not true, however. Even moving a rock, or casting a stone on the water has rippling affects. Outside of the system the affects are exponentiation. But that is only based on our observation. We still do not know if there are analogous butterfly affects operating on the level of the quantum, and then finding their way into the spectrum of our own observation capabilities.

Creating polyamory for instance destroys the one on one bond required for family unites to form, thereby killing the species, in the long run. This is why poly-amorous societies as a rule disintegrate into totalitarianism - statistically speaking such an outcome in history is always guaranteed.

That being said, being meta-modern, I woulnd't personally want someone to not have a right to declare themselves as they wish, even if it is going to result in the demise of humanity. But that is because I have been programmed to be liberal.